Data Import on Aurora Serverless
- 1 Overview
- 2 Summary
- 3 Results
- 3.1 DI CICO Total results
- 3.1.1 RDS CPU Utilization
- 3.1.2 CICO resource consumption
- 3.1.3 Testing results for CICO
- 3.1.4 CICO Graphs
- 3.1.5 Summary table for CICO
- 3.2 Comparison table for response times during 10k and 25k Data Import
- 3.3 Average Active Sessions for DI with 50k file
- 3.3.1 Aurora Capacity Units
- 3.4 Response times for all DB configurations
- 3.5 CICO DI Create + Update
- 3.5.1 CICO response times
- 3.1 DI CICO Total results
- 4 Appendix
- 4.1 Links to Grafana
- 4.2 Configuration
- 4.3 Environment
Overview
This page is created to investigate Aurora serverless performance by comparing DB xlarge, 8xlarge and Aurora serverless instance types under load running Data Import (DI) with Check-in Check-out (CICO) running as background.
Summary
The environment can handle the load with all compared DB instance types.
No significant changes were observed comparing response times for CICO between two instance types db.r6g.xlarge and serverless.
In Aurora serverless DI duration better for larger DI files.
Serverless v2 (32 - 128 ACUs) DB instance type configuration performs better from the start than (0.5 - 128 ACUs) due to increased capacity and its performance closer to 8xlarge. But to cut costs it's better to use (0.5 - 128 ACUs) for DB reader instance role.
Aurora serverless RDS CPU didn't exceed 25% for any file size. Execution time or test duration has tendency to decreasing for bigger file size because of bigger ACUs.
Time duration of DI without CICO didn't change after task count: mod-inventory, mod-inventory-storage, mod-circulation, mod-circulation-storage x 4.
Results
The table includes test results from running on different database instance types Here we observe that RDS CPU utilization for db.r6g.xlarge has maximum values and test duration grows proportional to file size.
But after database was switched to Aurora serverless RDS CPU didn't exceed 25% for any file size. Execution time or test duration has tendency to decreasing for bigger file size because of bigger ACUs.
DI CICO Total resultsCreate | RDS db.r6g.8xlarge | RDS db.r6g.xlarge | Serverless Serverless v2 (0.5 - 128 ACUs) | Serverless Serverless v2 (32 - 128 ACUs) | |||||||||
Users | File - Records | Duration (CICO) | Max CPU utilization | Duration | Max CPU utilization | Duration | Max CPU utilization | Duration | ACUs | Max CPU utilization | Duration | ||
1 | DI Create | 10k | 37 27 | 00:05:15 00:03:21 | 96 | 00:09:59 | 17 | 00:10:07 | 16 | 00:07:17 ↓ 28% | |||
25k | 45 30 | 00:10:04 00:08:08 | 96 | 00:18:19 | 24 | 00:13:43 | 22 | 00:11:44 ↓ 15% | |||||
50k | 30 | 00:15:54 | 93 | 00:37:05 | 25 | 00:22:57 | 24 | 00:20:01 ↓ 11% | |||||
2 | CICO + DI Create | 20 | 10k | 90 min | 39 | 00:04:32 | 94 | 00:08:08 | 19 | 00:09:12 | |||
25k | 47 | 00:09:01 | 96 | 00:19:21 | 26 | 00:14:30 | |||||||
3 | CICO DI Create JP: PTF - Create 2 | 20 | 10k | 90 min | 94 | 00:09:56 | 14 | 00:13:22 | 19 | ||||
25k | 94 | 00:21:06 | 24 | 00:23:49 | 25 | ||||||||
CICO DI Update JP: PTF - Updates Success - 1 | 20 | 10k | 90 min | 70 | 00:12:31 | 12 | 00:17:44 | 12 | |||||
25k | 70 | 00:29:12 | 12 | 00:31:35 | 13 | ||||||||
RDS CPU Utilization | |||
|---|---|---|---|
8xlarge | xlarge | serverless | |
RDS | CPU starts with spikes at the beginning of the tests and comes to normal after finish. Test date: 2023-05-25  | For xlarge database instance type CPU was maximum but it didn't affect DI any way. So it ran successfully Test date: 2023-05-29 | For serverless CPU was stable and was not higher than 25% Test date: 2023-05-30 |
Service | Data imports during CICO. The services worked stable and returned to there normal state after tests | CICO background process didn't affect DI and it worked as expected | Stable work of services |
CICO resource consumption
Running tests for CICO https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/PERF-593 I could observe that xlarge used more DB connections than any of DB instance types. The results mentioned in summary table show better response times over time for runs with 20 users. And no significant changes between different DB instance types. High latency was observed for all tests.
Testing results for CICOTest date: 2023-06-02 LG: us-west-2a | RDS (db.r6g.xlarge) | RDS (db.r6g.8xlarge) | Serverless v2 (0.5 - 128 ACUs) | Serverless v2 (32 - 128 ACUs) | |||||||||
Users | Duration (CICO) | RDS max CPU utilization | DB connections | RDS max CPU utilization | DB connections | RDS max CPU utilization | ACUs | DB connections | RDS max CPU utilization | ACUs | DB connections | ||
1 | CICO | 8 | 30 min | 16 | 460 | 2 | 364 | 2.5 | 7.5 | 380 | 1.5 | 32 | 380 |
20 | 30 min | 21 | 430 | 2.5 | 378 | 4.7 | 6.2 | 396 | 2 | 32 | 380 | ||
CICO Graphs
db.r6g.xlarge | db.r6g.8xlarge | Serverless v2 (0.5 - 128 ACUs) | Serverless v2 (32 - 128 ACUs) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Response Times Over Time | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users |
Throughput | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users |
RDS CPU utilization | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users |
Service CPU utilization | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users | 8 users 20 users |
Summary table for CICO
8 users | 20 users | |||||||||||
Requests | % KO | 75th pct | 95th pct | Average | Latency | % KO | 75th pct | 95th pct | Average | Latency | ||